Author
Topic: Ethereum (Read 4274 times)

Well, even without all the VM stuff, it looks waaay better compared to the rotten Bitcoin with a man-child in charge.

/r/Bitcoin now doesn't even look like North Korea anymore, it just looks like an asylum.

Ethereum can be a great temporary alternative for Bitcoiners, while they're waiting for a better coin:* second place at coinmarketcap* sane management/leadership with banking money backing* as a result - it's way more organized and has way more resources* it is also much more professional and is constantly advertised/hyped* architecturally, it is very close to Bitcoin if you just ignore the VM part, which is what's probably gonna happen anyway, i.e. 99% of txs will be just regular transfers, like in Bitcoin* it is actually even better designed, since they use accounts and not the freaking UTXO!* a lot of people seem to have already moved their money there

Right now there's probably not the best time to buy, though, since the price is propped by DAO's IPO.

---

This DAO, by the way, is an entertaining thing. It's clearly in the bubble stage right now - people investing just because so many others did. All the frenzied buying props the price.

What happens when the IPO ends? And then after some time people also realize there's not much you can actually do with Ethereum?And that the concept of "World's Computer" was, to put it politely, a bit misleading? That you can't actually run a word processor on it?

The price will drop hard. There's probably gonna be some panic selling too.

Let's say the price drops by half. So now all the wise investors of the DAO instantly have a negative 50% ROI

They will now have to work really, really hard just to get their money back! Not only that, but they now have 50% less capital to invest; and it will be spent not so much on investments as on trying to get ETH price back!

That might not be that bad for Ethereum's development, but one thing is for sure - it will all be quite entertaining

An interesting experiment that will probably fail. They will end up as a showcase for private blockchains that will borrow a lot from it, or just use it as a foundation. And seems like this is fine with Ethereum.

And for scalability they plan sharding, which is very difficult to pull off, especially when you only have a vague idea.

And how would you compare Simcoin to Ethereum? (An infographic of Bitcoin vs. Ethereum vs. Simcoin could be useful in the future.)

This is not a correct comparison, it's apples to oranges.

I always suggested this classification:

* Gen 1.0 - Bitcoin and all the clones of it, i.e. Ethereum. [Blockchain with PoW]* Gen 2.0 - Peercoin, Ripple, NXT and all the clones of them. [Blockchain with PoS] - includes Ethereum if they switch to PoS one day.* Gen 3.0 - Simcoin, RaiBlocks, DAG-based coins, etc. [PoS without blockchain] - can include weird experiments, like eMunie, here too.

This is most meaningful division, design-wise.

Gen 1.0 is proven to be viable, yet inevitably leading to centralization.Gen 2.0 is in the process of being proved, and we already see difficulties with PoS, like Ripple's consensus issues.Gen 3.0 is not even technically working yet It's at the proof-of-concept stage.

* Gen 1.0 - Bitcoin and all the clones of it, i.e. Ethereum. [Blockchain with PoW]* Gen 2.0 - Peercoin, Ripple, NXT and all the clones of them. [Blockchain with PoS] - includes Ethereum if they switch to PoS one day.* Gen 3.0 - Simcoin, RaiBlocks, DAG-based coins, etc. [PoS without blockchain] - can include weird experiments, like eMunie, here too.

Ah, that makes sense indeed. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm a bit worried though, that it will be difficult for the dumb masses to move past the overhyped "blockchain technology". But perhaps the time that is required to move from the proof-of-concept phase to proven-to-be-viable phase for DAG-based coins will be sufficient to bring about a change in focus. We'll see.

With The DAO the same principles are at work. Every time a project is funded, the amount of ETH backing the DAO tokens falls and is replaced with speculative IOU from a contractor. What is worse, when the ETH is sold to fund the projects the value of all ETH falls. Since The DAO keeps its savings in ETH, the actual cost of funding a proposal includes any loss value caused by selling ETH.

When it comes to decentralization, it often seems people assume too much that other people are of good faith. As soon money comes into the picture, greed can blind those who are generally good. People will vote in their self-interest and not for the greater good, possibly resulting in a system that doesn't produce the best possible outcome for everyone in it. But wasn't this one of the main advantages of decentralization? It seems a bit contradictory to me...

When it comes to decentralization, it often seems people assume too much that other people are of good faith. As soon money comes into the picture, greed can blind those who are generally good. People will vote in their self-interest and not for the greater good, possibly resulting in a system that doesn't produce the best possible outcome for everyone in it. But wasn't this one of the main advantages of decentralization? It seems a bit contradictory to me...

We will have to deal with it anyway. We have 600 M to distribute somehow.

Maybe a fixed spending rate should be defined, so the inflation rate is low and people only need to vote on small amounts.

Also, maybe voting on CEO makes more sense. I am starting to believe that after technology, a good CEO is the only thing that really matters.

That's why they get paid so much. Nothing will happen without a great leader.

Also, maybe voting on CEO makes more sense. I am starting to believe that after technology, a good CEO is the only thing that really matters.

That's why they get paid so much. Nothing will happen without a great leader.

I agree. Preferably someone smart with a clear and inspirational vision. Someone who can make well-advised decisions and who can convince people which path is the best one to take.

Some people say "no one is irreplaceable", but I think that's nonsense. Maybe it's true for average people (because there are plenty of them), but certainly not for great leaders or other influencers of society. Just one man or woman can make the difference.

Yeah... I think we could use someone like Elon Musk in the cryptoworld.

Therefore an even better best-practice (the one recommended in our “Programmer’s Guide to Ethereum and Serpent”, though it applies equally well to Solidity), is to directly check that the callstack resource is available. There is no built-in support for inspecting the callstack. Instead, we can define a macro, callStackIsEmpty(), which probes the callstack by making a test message that fails if and only if the callstack is empty.

But when you tell them - they get offended: oh, no, not following ACID while dealing with money is not mind boggling, you just don't understand

When you tell them - block re-enterability, they downvote. Now they realized they can't even rewrite the DAO to be re-enterable at all!

When I asked "Why nobody looks closely at the bug? It seems pretty much Ethereum's fault, not contract's." I got -6 votes.

Was I wrong? No, it's a fact, not an opinion. Can those cicrlejerkers accept a fact? No, some authority figure said the bug is isolated, so even the suggestion to consider alternatives got -6.

The more I look at crypto-communities, the more I realize they are self-killing. I don't think it's possible to create a mass coin, if its development will be completely structured in the same way existing communities are. BTC, NXT and Ethereum are vivid examples...

Now they cry: "We need guidelines..."

Yeah, you would freaking have them if you hadn't downvoted them into oblivion.